Considering how he poorly managed his charity, how he used it, IMHO, to advance his fraudulent career (sure, a few folks might have been helped, but that was probably more so by accident), I can't agree that any good he did, of which there was little, made any difference.

Click to expand...

I personally know of 2 hospitals that received funds from his charity, and gratefully so. Many people were helped by those contributions.

You could not be more wrong about those moneys failing to do good, or doing so "by accident".

That's not meant to (in any way) condone his bad decisions and actions...rather...it's to take a more realistic perspective in contrast to a cynical view.

Considering how he poorly managed his charity, how he used it, IMHO, to advance his fraudulent career (sure, a few folks might have been helped, but that was probably more so by accident), I can't agree that any good he did, of which there was little, made any difference.

Sorry, but it's clear that you misinterpreted my post. Any good that he did made little difference; he's guilty. If a murderer saves 100 children, does that lessen his crimes of killing 10? All of Lance's charity work is irrelevant; it has no impact upon his cheating.

Sorry, but it's clear that you misinterpreted my post. Any good that he did made little difference; he's guilty. If a murderer saves 100 children, does that lessen his crimes of killing 10? All of Lance's charity work is irrelevant; it has no impact upon his cheating.

Click to expand...

Then why didn't you say that? Instead, you claimed that the charity had been ineffective and poorly managed.

It was. You simply misconstrued my post to mean his "good" actions didn't affect the charity. I meant that his good actions have had no effect on his cheating, his lying, his entire reputation. Perhaps the original post was a wee bit ambiguous.

Sorry, but it's clear that you misinterpreted my post. Any good that he did made little difference; he's guilty. If a murderer saves 100 children, does that lessen his crimes of killing 10? All of Lance's charity work is irrelevant; it has no impact upon his cheating.

Click to expand...

Your original post, as well as this one...is easy to understand. You basically are saying in this 2nd post that no matter what he did that could be construed as a positive thing, it doesn't matter to you because of his actions toward doping. That's different than your statement in the 1st post, but appreicate the clarity to your view.

All that said - respectfully disagree.

There may not be any positive value in terms of how people perceive him overall in the context of his negative actions...but there is plenty of positive and lasting impact of how the recipients gained from the positive charity activities he performed.

Looking at the big picture - the glass is not half empty here, nor half full...it's completely full - part negative and part positive.

Just ask the cancer patients and others who have better lives because the funds were there to treat them, regardless of what happens to Lance at this point. At one hospital alone, there were literally hundreds of beneficiaries.

Unfortunately he made some very foolish choices that now pretty much prevent him from continuing the positive activities.

Say there is a serial killer (to go to an extreme)... but he is also a philanthropist... so he kills by night BUT by day he contributes to a charity that does good work.

The charity doesn't mitigate his serial killing does it? He isn't a "good" guy because he also helps, right?

And the charity... even if no fault of their own... kind of gets associated with the serial killer and it taints them a bit.

That's all I think Vader is saying.

Lance isn't helped by his charity work, because the bad he has done personally outweighs any good he has done... From the charity's perspective, even if they were good and didn't know about Lance, they still carry a bit of that negative with them going forward because of being associated... whether fair or not.

Lance isn't helped by his charity work, because the bad he has done personally outweighs any good he has done... From the charity's perspective, even if they were good and didn't know about Lance, they still carry a bit of that negative with them going forward because of being associated... whether fair or not.

Click to expand...

You are correct. A good reiteration of what I was trying to get across.

Lance isn't helped by his charity work, because the bad he has done personally outweighs any good he has done... From the charity's perspective, even if they were good and didn't know about Lance, they still carry a bit of that negative with them going forward because of being associated... whether fair or not.

Click to expand...

Your summation certainly is concise - no disagreement to it.

My issue with a previous post was the clear inference that the good stuff had no value just because it was initiated by Lance. Thanks for your rendition.